On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> wrote: > > > > > On 17 Jul 2014, at 10:24, Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > This is already what is currently happening, see > > > http://lxr.php.net/xref/PHP_TRUNK/Zend/zend_operators.c#1067. > > > > > > Andreas proposal is only useful in the case that the numbers don't > divide > > > exactly and you need round-down/truncation behavior and your numbers > are > > in > > > a range where the indirection through double arithmetic results in > > > precision loss. > > > > It’s still useful regardless as it saves you implementing it in terms of > > floats. > > > > I mean, you can implement a right shift (rarely used outside bit masks) > in > > terms of multiplication and exponentiation, but that doesn’t mean you > > shouldn’t have a right shift. > > > > -- > > Andrea Faulds > > http://ajf.me/ > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > There seems to be a pretty even split on this. Personally, I'm a +1 for > it. PHP has tons of obscure, rarely used functions. Even if the gain is > relatively minor, there's really no cost that I can think of. So from a > cost-benefit standpoint, even a minor improvement is still desirable when > there's no practical downside to it. > > Given the number of options that are coming up, I'd suggest you break the > RFC down into two votes: A simple yes/no vote followed by an "if yes, how > should it be implemented?" vote with the various options (the operators, > functions, etc). If the RFC passes, then whichever option got a plurality > of the votes would be the implemented option. > This makes it more complicated because a language change requires 2/3 majority while a new function requires 50% + 1. To make things simpler - and I believe it had been proposed before - the main vote should include the implementation as a function and the secondary vote should be for the operator. > > So yeah, I'd say bring it to a vote and that'll settle it one way or > another. > > --Kris > -- -- Tjerk
